The Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congress organised by a disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), deepening the party’s ongoing internal crisis.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also prohibited former Senate President, David Mark, alongside other key figures in the party, from interfering with the tenure and functions of duly elected state executive committees.
The ruling marks a significant turning point in the protracted leadership tussle within the ADC, with implications for control of party structures ahead of future political activities.
The suit was instituted by Norman Obinna and six others, representing ADC state chairpersons and executive committees nationwide. The plaintiffs challenged the legitimacy of a caretaker or interim national leadership, particularly its decision to constitute a committee to conduct state congresses.
They argued that such actions were unconstitutional, maintaining that only duly elected organs of the party, as provided for in the ADC constitution, possess the authority to organise congresses.
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik upheld the plaintiffs’ claims, describing the originating summons as “meritorious” and worthy of judicial intervention.
She identified the central issue as whether the defendants—ranging from the second to sixth respondents, including Mark—had the legal authority to usurp the functions of elected state organs whose tenure remains protected under the party’s constitution.
Relying on Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates democratic governance within political parties, alongside relevant provisions of the ADC constitution, the court held that party leadership must emerge strictly through constitutionally recognised processes.
“The question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee to organise state congresses,” the judge stated.
Addressing the defence that the matter was an internal party affair beyond judicial scrutiny, Justice Abdulmalik acknowledged established legal principles but clarified that courts retain jurisdiction where constitutional breaches are alleged.
“The law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene,” she ruled.
She further emphasised that political parties must operate within the bounds of their constitutions, warning that any deviation—particularly in leadership processes—cannot be justified under the guise of internal autonomy.
The court found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” lacked constitutional backing and was therefore invalid.
Consequently, Justice Abdulmalik affirmed that the tenure of the existing state executive committees remains intact and must not be disrupted.
In a series of consequential orders, the court nullified the congress committee and barred INEC from recognising any congress conducted under its authority.
Additionally, the defendants were restrained from organising congresses or conventions outside the framework of the ADC constitution, as well as from taking steps capable of undermining the authority of elected state executives.
The defendants in the suit include the ADC, David Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
While the plaintiffs insisted that caretaker arrangements violate both party rules and constitutional provisions, the defendants countered with preliminary objections, arguing that the dispute was purely internal, non-justiciable, and improperly brought before the court.
They also questioned the plaintiffs’ legal standing and contended that internal dispute resolution mechanisms were not exhausted prior to litigation.
However, the court dismissed those objections, reinforcing the principle that internal party affairs are subject to judicial review where breaches of law or constitution are established
